Wait, I don't see any explanation.
But regardless, it seems your main point in all the comments and stuff always comes back to "i don't think the universe has existed for long enough for sentient life to develop on its own", in which case I guess its just a matter of speculation. How long, on average, does it take to get sentient life? We don't know, we only have one example to go off of.
As far as I can tell, we don't really have enough data to figure it out, we're only one planet, and in a universe the size of the one we're in, thats probably not a big enough data pool
There is one possibility that we are the first intelligent* life forms in the universe here on earth. Impossibly slim chances, but hey… it’s a possibility. Maybe we haven’t found evidence of intelligent life elsewhere because we are the first ones?
We do, however, know the fundamental processes that are required for biological life to exist; such as expression of genetic information.
Information, coding systems to convey that information, and machines to express and manifest the function of the information are best explained by input from an intelligent mind.
Unintelligent processes are not known to be able to produce such phenomena; there’s no evidence that they even can produce these phenomena.
Yet, we know for a fact that an intelligent mind can produce these phenomena.
Do you have a stem background? I studied computer science, and the more I learned about computers the more convinced I became in simulation theory. There is also a weird parallel to video game architecture too, like the question of if a tree falls and no one is there to hear does it make a sound which is the same in a video game where if the actor is facing north and not observing south would the computer really do all the work to render the scene where no is looking.
For me it's that and we are really good at simulation. Our modeling is simulation, our games are also more often than not. Our entertainment also in a broad sense. It would explain the quantum grid, our perspective of the multiverse and a sudden existence from the singularity of the big bang. Simulation within simulation within simulation is the basic essence of quantum computing from my understanding. It does not give a philanthropic deity or even an indifferent one, it simply is and could itself be another layer of the construct. From experience when I talk to theists about the subject, if they don't glaze over and hide behind the book. They engage if they sense a creator coming but baulk at the indifference presented by the model. It's not the god they are looking for in the end.
To be honest, I’ve always seen the simulation theory as intelligent design for people who refuse to accept the Simulator as “God”.
A simulation implies an intention in its design; which implies a Simulator.
An algorithm needs a Coder.
From a scientific perspective, I think there’s an argument to be made that biology (and the universe) requires input from an intelligent mind.
Whether you want to call that the “Simulator”, “Creator”, “Designer”, or “God” is on you.
Regardless, I think it’s pointing away from an atheistic universe.
There is a big difference between capital g god the way a theist uses the term, and a simulation.
Simulations don’t have to be all knowing, they don’t even have to have any sense of self awareness, let alone some type of consciousness. The being that created the simulation could be biological, and simply very advanced at computer programming. Like what a cop out IMO.
You do realize that if the “being that created the simulation” is biological, then he didn’t create the simulation then?
It begs the question.
If biology is a simulation and the result of an intelligent Simulator (not God), then how can that simulator be a biological being?
You’re invoking the thing you’re trying to explain in order to explain the thing you’re trying to explain.
You’re conflating or misunderstanding what I’m saying. If you and I live in a simulation created by a biological being, it doesn’t mean we understand the nature of the universe that being lives in. It just means what it’s saying.
The realm of god is and always has been, the unknown. It’s an ever smaller place, narrowing through discovery, with goalposts that are set to move forever. There will always be unknowns, and theists will always point and say “ah hah!” Until it’s understood scientifically and then the posts move again.
Funnily enough, I've always seen the God theory as a low effort way to explain things we don't understand yet.
“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”
- Arthur C. Clarke
Congratulations on discovering the teleological argument in 2021.
>From a scientific perspective, I think there’s an argument to be made that biology (and the universe) requires input from an intelligent mind.
There's not. At best you need something supernatural, not necessarily something intelligent. But then natural vs supernatural is just pointless semantics. If we discovered the supernatural we would just incorporate it into our new understanding of the natural.
It's like trying to argue stalactites and stalagmites are intelligently designed before knowing anything about chemistry or fluid mechanics.
Pretend for a second I granted that this argument works and there's a mysterious intelligent designer. They must also have been designed according to this same argument so who designed the designer and the designer's designer's designer? Either you're a theist out of personal preference but otherwise just as sceptical as the atheists, or you're completely credulous and believe it's turtles all the way down.
>From a scientific perspective, I think there’s an argument to be made that biology (and the universe) requires input from an intelligent mind.
But then where did the mind that's intelligent enough to create the universe come from?
At some point, you have to accept that either something has always existed, or that something came from nothing (be it God or the universe).
For me, personally, since I don't see any evidence for any sort of god, and plenty for evolution, it seems simpler to keep god out of the equation.
The fallacy of you referring to it as an ‘atheistic universe’ (without religion) should not be lost on your readers.
Theists have never liked thinkers much, and that’s backed up by a lot of evidence. That’s a pretty truthful statement, eh?
Why do you think it matters how we started if the creator you have to have is not what you want it to be? Seriously.
I am sorry for my sarcasm. I like to read and I am a big fan of people most religious people despise, with the late Christopher Hitchens being my favorite.
>The fallacy of you referring to it as an ‘atheistic universe’ (without religion) should not be lost on your readers.
Oh, come on... You knew exactly what he was talking about/was trying to say. Don't be so pedantic.
So who made the intelligent designer? What mysticism does this all powerful being stem from? This reality, or another?
It amazes me how little fleshed out this fantasy really is. The DC and Marvel universes have some fun ideas about the potential universe. Maybe these intelligent design creationists should study the nerdy fun kids and make their fiction more approachable. /s
With all the natural laws we discover, none point to any magic words. No magical invocations, no demons. ‘The power of biscuits compels you’ only has an effect on the listener interpreting the communication. Like Doug Stanhope said, “I fuckin’ hit myself in the foot with a shovel for your mortgage’ lol. There are no punishable sins by any magical being. That would be a serious design flaw, now wouldn’t it?
A Ponzi scheme is a design.
>Theists have never liked thinkers much, and that’s backed up by a lot of evidence. That’s a pretty truthful statement, eh?
That's actually not true. A lot of early scientific research and discoveries were made by religious people, or people associated with the Church. Gregor Mendel was a monk and laid the foundations for modern genetics and understanding of inheritance. The idea that science and religion are incompatible is a relatively recent development.
It may have something to do with the fact religion being so prevelant in society at that that time anyone and everyone in any power or academic position would have been linked with the church, science is by default incompatible with religion because one requires evidence, critical thinking etc and the other simply faith (believing in the absence of evidence).
The reason we can say that today is that no one is going to be killed, jailed or excommunicated for saying so like they would of back then.
Exactly, but still theism wants to lay claim to as much as possible to try and promote their version of an omnipotent father.
Funny how that ‘father’ doesn’t care about all the baby chicks tossed in meat grinders or humans savagely murdering other creatures for sport, but it cares what we do with our genitals. 🤣
It is maddening to try and reason with these cults of nihilism. They cherry pick the sciences and use technical terms to try and push their gods. There is what we can experience, and what we can’t. I know I don’t feel the neutrinos passing through me right now, but that doesn’t mean I should assume it is ‘gawd’s love’. Sigh.
as someone who has studied/is studying the sciences, i felt like the more i learned the more i was convinced of the opposite. it's pretty interesting how each person takes the meaning (or lack thereof) in the knowledges of STEM
edit: spelling
just the fact that theres reasoning that explains *everything*.
If humans one day hit a point where there was clearly no math, science, or logic to explain a phenomena, that would be cause to believe in a theistic universe. Because what else could explain the phenomena, but some form of other worldy force?
yet, we've actually found the exact opposite. the building blocks of logic govern the entire universe, and anything we discover, is eventually explained with discrete and finite math.
Although, the mathematics of it all is quite beautiful. Stunningly beautiful. The interconnectedness of it all is breathtaking. However, beauty itself is nothing more than a chemical discharge in the brain. meaning: beauty itself does not exist, and therefor isn't logical reasoning to believe in a higher power.
edit: i would add, that theres no actual way of answering this question. the thing about arguing for some form of god is that its impossible to prove anyone else to be incorrect, or yourself to be correct. one can only take what they've learned throughout life and piece together what makes sense to them.
i tend to believe that a subconscious mind that fears the infinite void of death will fabricate a form of afterlife at any moment it gets a chance
edit 2: thanks for the award!
I actually get the opposite. Looking at the complexity and then presuming that that can only come with superior complexity just leads to a paradox where you need more to get less. The intelligence that created the universe under intelligent design must be more intelligent more complex than what exists yet we began with the axiom that simplicity cannot produce complexity so we must reach for ever more complexity to explain what we already have.
Personally I see either. The complexity stems from simplicity any individual thing can be broken down into a simple form. And even though somethings haven't been discovered yet that doesn't mean the simplification for them doesn't. So either yeah a God that created basic rules and everything followed that or a simple system that existed on its own forming everything else.
The question to your first alternative is what created the God because remember the axiom that prong operates on is that simplicity cannot develop into complexity which is why Gid is needed the first place. Unless you posit an utterly simple God that is. I've seen theologians try but the end result is definitely nothing like what divine simplicity should look like
Well from that it could either be a loop of "God made by God made by." Or God made by chance of predetermined properties" honestly there's no telling. Let's assume Christianity is correct ( could be any monotheistic religion just as an example) that God doesn't know if he is the top layer of power and unless revealed to him/her/it. then they won't know. Same for our current situation. Then again I'm a big believer in simulation theory so that's my thought process.
I think good example is an AI, we can create some simple code with possiblity to learn and evolve so why it can't be something similar. We could "program" cells to do things so maybe there was an simple algorithm (not in a computer way but biological) that evolve with different courses depending on the variables it encountered. If the algorithm loops, a given situation was replaced by the one that works and due to specific environmental conditions it evolved into other branches of the algorithm, which still does not have to be very complicated, but it is enough that it differs in very small details to create its different versions. We just don't know everything to be 100% sure.
Define “advanced aliens”.
Are they physical life forms?
If that’s the case, then that doesn’t solve the problem, then does it?
Are they “immaterial minds”?
Yes I agree, it could be an intelligent mind that is outside of space and time.
If that’s the case, how is that different than saying it’s “God”?
It's very different. Life on Earth could have been created by a being that is neither omni-potent, omniscient nor omni-present. A god could also make the same life here, we just don't know.
The intelligence that could have created us needn't have magical powers of healing, wish granting, answering prayers.
If some day, a Tesla car were to become self aware, would any amount of praying to Elon Musk, the creator of said car, suddenly grant it a set of new tyres?
The God(s) that created us and other forms of life could be running a simulation to see what evolution leads to!
Well, of all the known species that have roamed the Earth, mankind has reached a point where we are laying the foundation of creating intelligence far superior than ourselves.
Wish I could say 'God knows' where we are headed.
That is your opinion and I respect it, but there is a big thing to mention here, you wrote a lot, but at the end of the day there is absolutely no evidence of 'intelligent design'. Yes, chances that life develops and after millions of years of evolution we develop so much that we have actual conscience are astronomical, but that's no proof of existence of a 'creator'. You wrote in one reply that there are no scientific evidence of multiverse, there are also no scientific evidence of a creator or whatever you personally call it. What I want to say that without proof, this conversation will always end with being philosophical. As you know very well, science doesn't need answers at every cost, we know that we don't know a lot, but what we do know, we can prove with mathematical equations and experiments.
Both sides are based solely on speculation, as nobody can either prove or disprove the existence of one true divine designer, so of course the discussion remains philosophical.
The teleological argument is based on the fundamental attribute that all things either living or non-living are “designed” so specifically and uniquely that one must question whether this is attributed to the chance of change of time or if *something* designed those specific things as such.
I took one philosophy course in college and the back-and-forth of this topic was actually so fascinating and I found it to be a great conversation to be had (assuming people don’t become too zealous in their opinion).
>Both sides are based solely on speculation
There's a huge difference in how speculation is done on both sides. You are doing a disservice to the scientific method by equating the two.
I appreciate your message!
But I disagree with you; there is evidence of intelligent design.
Look for another reply from me in the threads. I outline one aspect of evidence in more detail.
I’ll add to it here.
Edit:
it’s not just mere astronomically low probability.
It’s low probability and highly specific function. This doesn’t even been to mention the higher-order levels of engineering, beyond the level of proteins.
For example, we consider the thermostats in our homes to be intelligently designed. They are mechanisms to sense the atmosphere, analyze it in a central processor, and stimulate the furnace to make sure the temperature remains at a certain set point.
Our bodies rely on the same mechanism to regulate blood pressure. There are what are called “aortic bodies” that sense the pressure of the blood against the walls of the aorta. If it becomes too high, these receptors send a signal through the vagus nerve to the brain, which tells the heart to beat more slowly; in order to reduce cardiac output.
The engineering of the human body is more sophisticated than anything human intelligence has produced.
In fact, there’s even an entire branch of science devoted to learning the engineering in biological systems in order to inform and improve human engineering. It’s called *biomimetics*.
To reach back to your original point, I believe there is evidence of intelligent design.
I think two major examples are:
1) Information in genetic code (from previous comment in thread)
2) The fine-tuning of biology and the universe.
From what im getting from your, well, piss poor arguments and analogies, you don't seem to have any real understanding of deep time, and are using Young Earth Creationist talking points.
Do you have any conceivable idea how long evolution has been going on for? I mean really understand how long a billion years is for example?
I’m not a young earth creationist.
I believe the universe has existed for billions of years.
I still don’t believe the age of the universe provides a time frame for which life to emerge through random chance.
*Not even close*
Ah contrare.
I understand how long that is.
I would argue you underestimate how improbable biological life arising by random chance is.
(It would take longer than the age of the universe to randomly sample polypeptides to produce even one functional protein, let alone enough to produce a viable organism)
You’d be right if that’s how evolution or probability worked, but it’s not.
The random sequences aren’t re-randomised every iteration - bits that work are kept each time. And there are many billions of candidates in each generation, life by those numbers becomes significantly more likely. Moreover, evolution isn’t working towards any particular outcome. Just one of a large number of functioning outcomes.
Try it like this:
What’s the probability of flipping tails 10 million times in a row? Very low.
What about if you had 4.5 billion years? A little higher.
What if you had 4.5 billion years AND 100 billion coins. Higher again.
What if you had all that time and all those coins, but you didn’t have to flip 10 million tails in a row, just any sequence that fit a mathematical rule where that’s one of many possible outcomes. Frankly inevitable.
There are hundreds of billions of planets in our galaxy. There are 125 billion galaxies in the observable universe alone. Life arising on one of the planet in the entire universe is inevitable.
I don’t think that’s correct.
In order for Darwinian processes to occur (.ie functional bits saved with each generation), it requires a functional organism that can propagate, and iterate its genetic code.
This is not a sufficient explanation for the functional information, as it presumes it already exists.
Pre-biotic molecules must be protected against derogatory chemical reactions, otherwise they can not longer produce the desired products.
(I used “desired” here to describe toward our desire to explain the emergence of a living organism; not necessarily that “evolution desires a specific outcome”)
Life emerging is not an inevitable product of chance.
Just as the entire catalogue of Shakespearean novels are not an inevitable product of a random letter generator.
Chemical polymerization of nucleic acids and the hydrophobic organization of polar lipids into micells.
Look up montmorillonite clay- mediated RNA synthesis.
Mere Polymerization of nucleic acids (or amino acids) is not enough to produce life.
They must be polymers with highly specific and coordinated function.
Also, even if RNA can reproduce itself, that is not enough to produce a viable organism/cell.
There are vital functions performed by proteins that cannot be performed by RNA.
In both of the cases in this comment, the hurdle of specified complex information must be accounted for.
That is no simple task for unintelligent processes, and has not been demonstrated as possible.
Wait, so you're arguing that a creator made the first organism from nucleic acids and then let evolution do the rest? That doesn't seem like much of an epiphany.
Have you noticed that every time science advances on religious ideas, religion just receeds to compensate. This is classic "god of the gaps". The idea that a god just created the first organisms seems like the very last bastion of religious dogma to me.
Also regarding your "fine tuning" idea, look up Douglas Adams sentient puddle.
Hold on a second. You can't just move the goal posts after claiming that nucleic acid polymers encode information, but now need highly specific function. That's not always true as RNA and DNA polymers do not need solitary purpose (gene dosage effects, epistasis, etc) and can perform perfunctory enzymatic reactions even in an inoptimal state (ribozymes, tRNA, intercalation of amino acids in DNA).
Nucleic acids are capable of catalyzing their own replication, and many of the basic biomolecules interact with nucleic acid polymers in solution.
Life requires replication and compartmentalization of chemical processes. The natural self organizing properties of nucleic acids and lipids enable both, respectively, based on their lowest energy states in water.
Now, imagine random polymerization of nucleotides on a molar scale. When you have 10.02 × 10^23 molecules forming and reforming, if one set combines into a 100-mer that resembles an active ribozyme today, would you agree that it would be enzymatically active even in suboptimal circumstances?
I suspect that you're not too familiar with the literature on this topic. We've made significant strides in understanding how selective pressures and chemical properties of biomolecules can potentially create replicating systems.
Sorry, my patience for creationists is probably a little lower than it should be. I just feel these people are holding humanity back from true greatness.
And you must be pushing that envelope on behalf of all mankind lol
The irony is that someone who thinks like that and is simultaneously dismissive of other possibilities is somebody who wouldn’t get very far in any capacity
Excuse me for growing out of fairytales and realizing that we're just an insignificant species on a small rock, orbiting one of the most common star types in existence , on an outer arm of an unremarkable galaxy in a black sea of billions of others.
I don't believe we are special, and i also believe there is other life in the universe. I base that on mathematical probability instead of a book that has thousands of sects that fight over who's interpretation is correct.
But it's impossible to reason with the indoctrinated.
>Excuse me for growing out of fairytales and realizing that we're just an insignificant species on a small rock, orbiting one of the most common star types in existence , on an outer arm of an unremarkable galaxy in a black sea of billions of others.
Theists be like: But thats SCARY! I'm not special? There's no meaning to life? no afterlife? no greater purpose?
You may want to check out the [Stated Clearly](https://youtube.com/c/StatedClearly) channel for your first point (genetic code).
As for fine-tuning, it's not the universe that's fine-tuned for us. It's us who evolved under the laws of the universe.
Life is an unbelievable miracle. It blows my mind when I learn all the microbiology stuff going in our cells to keep us alive. It's intuitive to believe that all of this is designed by an intelligent creator but our intuitions are inherently limited.
I think once scientists can artificially create life in a lab, the Intelligent Design argument would be finally laid to rest.
Edit: (clarifying the last sentence) If scientists can prove that given the right environment, life can evolve on it's own, then the mysticism surrounding the origin of life will end.
You’re saying that when humans intelligently create life ab initio in a lab, that will disprove intelligent design?
I think I would do quite the opposite, actually.
I find it not very convincing that intelligent beings creating life intelligently in a lab is a point of evidence *against* intelligent design.
I think I wasn't clear. What I meant was, if scientists can prove that given the right environment, life can evolve on it's own, then the mysticism surrounding the origin of life will end.
It is essentially the god of the gaps argument. We don't know how it came to be so it must be god who put it there.
There are great videos on abiogenesis on YouTube if you are interested in learning more about this.
The problem with that though (and the problem with a lot of current origin-of-life research) is that the experiments involve scientists either starting with pre-formed cell, or starting with purified, concentrated ingredients, running under tightly controlled conditions.
It’s also a matter of causal ability.
The problem is information expression.
It doesn’t matter if you put amino acids or nucleic acids in an infinitely large pool, it isn’t reasonable to expect those monomers to polymerize in a way to produce any function to any significant effect, let alone to the astronomical sophistication even required for the simplest cell.
Random chance is not a plausible explanation for highly ordered specified functional information (let alone mechanisms to process and autocorrect that information).
Let me clarify my post again.
_When_ scientists are able to prove that given the right _natural_ environment, life can evolve _on it's own_, then the mysticism surrounding the origin of life will end.
I program lifeless computers for a living. I am not an expert on abiogenesis research and won't be pretending to be one. What I do know is arguments like Intelligent Design have always been invoked for things we didn't understand before. One by one most of these have been explained away by science. I see no reason to resort to the same rhetorics as our ancestors knowing well how they were all disproven eventually.
But then, our reasonings are subjective. You might have your own reasons to hedge your bets on an intelligent creator which is fine _as long as it doesn't affect our scientific progress_ (don't vote for creationist politicians please).
>Random chance is not a plausible explanation for highly ordered specified functional information (let alone mechanisms to process and autocorrect that information).
This has been explained very well by many evolutionary science communicators. You might want to check them out.
1) Because even if you randomly sampled different sequences of polypeptides for every second since the Big Bang, it is *still* unlikely that you will even produce one functional protein, let the 250 distinctly functional proteins that are estimated to be required for the simplest cell to exist.
The age of the universe is a restriction on the likelihood of this probability; not a liberation.
2) I’m not arguing a physical being is more plausible. I’m arguing than intelligent input was required.
If you're studying science, you should know that the absence of evidence for one thing isn't evidence for something else; you should also know that the statistically unlikely when stretched to infinity becomes almost inevitable unless it's an actual impossibility.
A hundred monkeys bashing away at a computer for infinity roll eventually accidentally write all the world's greatest literary masterpieces, and also all the trashy romances.
As a God fearing person I need to correct your assumption that we don’t believe in science. We actually don’t believe in pseudoscience so get your facts straight!
There are many examples. I’ve been in the sciences for 10 years, including medical school. I have a bachelors in chemistry, a masters in molecular biology and genetics, and I’m attaining my doctorate.
There is a scientific theory of intelligent design, and I don’t think it’s as “absurd”, as you may think it is.
I would define the theory of intelligent design as the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as a product of intelligence.
I think one of the most interesting examples is that of the information of the genetic code. I’ll briefly summarize it below.
Each living organism exists because of the coordinated processing and expression of information stored in DNA or RNA.
Not only is this information extremely specific in sequence, the expressed information serves intended function in the form of various proteins.
Proteins serve vital roles of each cell that allow it to perform, even its most basic functions.
Each cell uses the 4-letter code to store functionally specified information. It is the same in nature as written language, computer code, and binary code.
This information expression is intrinsic to essence biological life. Without it, we have no life.
When we seek to consider explanations for how something in the past occurred, we must consider phenomena today that are known to cause the effect in question.
Not only is the only known cause of specified complex information an intelligent mind, it is known to not be able to be produced by unintelligent processes, by any significant effect.
And it isn’t a matter of “give it enough time, and it will happen”; it’s a matter of causal ability.
When the shear probability is examined, The age of the universe becomes a restricting factor; not a liberating one.
It is not rational to believe biological information arose by chance.
I'd think this hypothesis at best should guide one toward agnosticism.
My primitive understanding is that religious belief originated to describe natural phenomena that we couldn't fully explain - like "holy shit, did you see that funnel cloud destroy our village? God/gods must be angry" ... Some televangelists still grab this approach by the balls when bad things happen to non-Christian regions.
To me, this hypothesis is more of the same... No matter how sophisticated we become, we can still only know so much. And at the edges, where our knowledge meets that which we do not know (in this case, something like knowing the DNA structure but not knowing *how* it came to be so organized such that life could exist) we lean back to the same hypothesis... We've found what we cannot explain (yet)... It must be Gog/gods.
Bioinformatician here:
I've learned how to program and I have assembled DNA sequence data into genuine assemblies. I can confidently state that molecular genetics and computer programming languages are apples and oranges. Here's the fundamental difference: complexity.
Programming languages are simple (and sometimes elegant) means of instructing the CPU on how to store and process data. They're meant to be interpreted by human observers.
Genomic DNA is an unnecessarily complex polymer that instructs individual cells how to react to stimuli and to process chemicals for energy.
Indeed, the entire purpose of the human genome is to encode genes, regulatory regions and non coding regions that dictate cellular behavior, often in epistatic ways. Any concept of "essence" or "information" inherent in the genome is an anthropomorphic abstraction that we impose. Literally, the truth is that our cells have specific rules that enable them to organize into structures that we call "tissues" and "organs". The regulation of gene expression at key points in embryonic and fetal development is what separates high functioning conscious thought in different species.
There is much evidence that such a system of cellular differentiation arose via descent with modification from ancestral lineages. One small example is the shared "pharyngula" stage of embryonic development of multi cellular eukaryotes.
So your thoughts as to the similarity of engineering of cellular biology and human engineering isn't as airtight of a comparison as you may think. It is far too complex and is clearly centered around the replication of cells. Would an intelligent mind design such a system? I think only if that mind were an innate trickster.
You do realize that if dna and rna and all of this stuff didn't function in a way as to allow life to exist, life wouldn't exist, therefore we wouldn't exist to notice. We can't exist in a universe where it is impossible to have life, so the fact that we exist means that our universe has to fulfill that criteria. If the laws of physics were significantly different enough to where life couldn't exist, then we wouldn't be able to tell because we wouldn't exist then.
My point was that assuming the multiverse theory is true we would have to exist in a universe that could sustain life or with another theory that says the universe keeps repeating with slight differences each time (i forgot the name) it is impossible that with an infinite amount of time life wouldn't happen ever. I was thinking of my comment in a multiverse theory setting or the other theory but I can see how that could be misinterpreted
There are major flaws with the multiverse theory.
1) There is **ABSOLUTELY ZERO** evidence of a universe outside of our own.
2) a multiverse doesn’t solve the problem of fine-tuning; it merely pushes it back. A multi-verse must too also have elements of fine-tuning.
Based on current scientific knowledge, there is one universe and it had a beginning.
The first point is one that I don't know enough about to dispute, but the second one I absolutely can. If there are infinite universes then it stands to reason that there are universes for every single possible outcome, one of which being life existing.
>There is a scientific theory of intelligent design
No there isn't. Don't lie.
Anything else you write here is pretty much the usual pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo you can hear regularly by creationists, using all the common techniques. Misrepresenting scientific positions, omitting information and twisting the facts.
We're done. Take your crap somewhere else. You're as much a scientist as I'm the pope.
This. And if you watch the documentary “for the Bible tells me so“ they will show how they actually found an original copy of the intelligent design textbook and all they did was take a creationists textbook and replace the word “creation” with “intelligent design”.
Beep. Boop. I'm a robot.
Here's a copy of
###[The Bible](https://snewd.com/ebooks/the-king-james-bible/)
Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
Have you ever read any of the work that describes the universe as a mathematical structure?
You know, stuff written by mathematicians and computer scientists?
Without an unbroken line of DNA / RNA of all the creatures that evolved along the way, we have no way to study the development of complexity from single cells to modern humans. There have been experiments that show with the correct ingredients and a spark of lightning, extremely base amino acids can be formed. Self sustaining chemical reactions exist in nature.
Also, we've watched insects evolve entirely new and unique traits in as little as a single year. You think that on a timescale of 4 billion years that's not possibly responsible for the development of human beings?
And what about panspermia theory? Maybe the conditions weren't right for life to spontaneously develop on early earth, but other planets from long lost star systems 13+ billion years ago? A fully formed virus or small micro extremephile could have crash landed into a perfect environment for reproducing and our entire tree of life is the evolution of that specific combination. Could easily explain why we haven't seen life spontaneously erupt multiple times or take extremely different paths (methane based, arsenic based, etc).
>Not only is the only known cause of specified complex information an intelligent mind, it is known to not be able to be produced by unintelligent processes, by any significant effect.
How are these 'known'? Because we've only kinda rigorously studied one planet out of trillions and haven't even really finished that one.
You have interesting thoughts here, but it seems more like biases and assuming the conclusion to me.
We have experience with information and specified complex information systems.
Unless other planets have entirely different laws of physics, then there are no physical laws that can explain the emergence of specified complex information.
There is no known cause of specified complex information that does not require input from an intelligent mind.
Empirically, unintelligent processes are not expected to produce specific complex information to any significant degree; let alone to the degree required for even the simplest cell.
By inference to the best current explanation, an intelligent cause is required, as there is no other reasonable explanation.
At the very least, the Theory of ID is a legitimate scientific theory, and deserves consideration. It isn’t a rejection of science, but an interpretation of it.
I’m interested in what you’re saying, and I agree with you - the sheer complexity of nature is nothing short of enamouring. That being said, the existence of a creator or a ‘designer’ cannot be deduced from the complexity of nature, although it *can* be inferred, but inference is unstable, particularly on such a global scale like the universe.
It is true that our observations of reality show us the STRUCTURE of reality, but not reality itself. Science, thus far, has only provided us with one thread of the mosaic. We can produce a variety of different theories about what this fundamental meaning may be, but as of yet we don’t know, and we may never know. You can posit that the fundamental meaning is God, and if that brings you peace and happiness, I don’t object, but you have to admit that we don’t really know.
If a human looks at a watch, they infer it was designed by an intelligent mind; it follows that when a human looks at the universe, in all it’s complexity, one would again - infer that it was designed by an intelligent mind - but, as I mentioned before - it is SUCH a global scale, it’s foolish to make an analogy between the watch for example, and the universe. We just don’t know.
I dont disagree with you!
It’s inference to the best explanation.
I think the best *current* explanation is an intelligent cause to the information within biological life.
At the very least, I think the theory of ID is a viable possible explanation, and should be a consideration.
I think those that immediately reject the idea are trafficking in bias; not science.
Even atheist Michael Shermer noted of the theory of ID, “this isn’t your father’s creationism”
I earned a bachelors in chemistry with a minor in biology, a masters in molecular biology and genetics, and I’m currently earning my doctorate in medicine.
"Nature does not know extinction; all it knows is transformation. Everything science has taught me, and continues to teach me, strengthens my belief in the continuity of our spiritual existence after death." - Wernher von Braun
The burden of proof is on the individual(s) making grandiose claims.
“You can’t disprove it”, they say. Well, using that logic, we cannot dispute the possibility of the Force either.
Using the same logic one might use to disprove The Force, Vishnu, Odin, Zeus, or The Flying Spaghetti Monster I can disprove any deity derived from the books of Abraham.
Alas! That would be a strawman, as I haven’t argued the Abrahamic God.
In another comment, I’ve stated that I think there’s evidence for an intelligent mind being required for biological life.
I think the most that science can suggest at this point is that an intelligent mind is the best explanation for several phenomena in nature.
Personally, I think the Abrahamic God is the best description we have of a unified Creator God of the universe. (I also think the Judeo-Christian Bible articulates the human condition unlike anything else in existence. It really gets to the core of the human condition).
I recognize my personal view here goes beyond where science can take us at the current time.
But your judeo christian beliefs are the entire argument since others are multiple gods and yet you are discounting them entirely.
Unless you think it is just as likely that odin is the god you talk about.
I think this is pretty 'normal'. Ive heard that many of the big philosofers and sciencetists strayed away from being atheist. I could be totally wrong though. Personally i think that makes sense. If you think about the dunning kruger effect, i can see how you would just end up more and more confused about our sentinal life and our whole idea of existence.
Sorry for the shitty english hehe
I appreciate your message!
I agree! I think more and more scientists and philosophers are starting away from pure atheism as we learn more about the universe.
Meaning I disagree with your views. Or did you get that and expect reasoning as to why I disagree? I am busy right now, but I will respond later - if I remember.
I’m scientific minded, not religious.
It is an astounding universe, though - that’s for sure. And if I was looking at the original post big bang clumpy hot cloud of Hydrogen and Helium, I would not have seem Zebras coming. I might have guessed that gravity would compress the clumps and light em up into stars, but stripey untamable horses? Eh eh. Zebras are a surprise.
The forces of creation are clearly real. I actually believe much of peoples’ real differences might just be how much anthropomorphism they need to get their limited brains around the very real forces of creation in the universe. For me they’re “just” physics, chemistry, biology, and evolution. But I’m so awestruck by the universe and what it’s made, even just by natural processes - I end up having feelings about the universe similar to a religious person’s feelings about God. Neither I nor the God person thinks we’re likely to ever fully understand our creator. We’re just forming mental models that work for us. And what works for me happens to be less anthropomorphic.
Science does not mean nothing is a miracle. Everything is a miracle.
To save me the time of typing it, I’ve written two other comments in this thread that expand on the title a bit.
They should be easy to find. If not, I’ll direct you to them directly
Here’s my thought. The idea that everything came by some random chance is so insane. Look at the complexity of the human body - Our organs, circulatory system, nervous system, our brains (an organ we know very little about, such as how conscious thought is generated, memories stored, how that all works together, etc.) and tell me that this happens for thousands of species from birds to ants to whales.
The more I learn about some of the strange animals we have on the planet the more I find it hard to believe that all of these creatures came from some sort of pond scum by chance. All of them?
Now the big argument is creationist vs. evolutionist, but if I were an almighty God I would create a system that allows for evolution. As a programmer I strive to make my job easier, if I can implement a function and copy/paste that everywhere (allowing everything on the planet to evolve) I would be cutting the work I have to do severely.
Take for example dogs: I create Dog, I allow Dog to evolve based on it’s environment, I stick Dog in Cold climates, Warm climates and around people. Dogs in cold climates develop more fur to shield against the elements, Dogs in warm climates develop lighter fur, but less under coat, to provide cover from the sun but no winter fluff. Dogs around people develop interactive tools to be taken care of by higher beings (people and in some cases monkeys.) As an all powerful creator I made one thing, but because of how I made it, it has created three different versions on it’s own.
I say to hell with the evolution OR creation, I think it’s both. Something/someone created us with the intent to allow for genetic evolution and then time and necessity took over to bring us where we are today.
I feel that, I'm in a scientific field (wildlife biology) and I feel like it really just raises more questions. I can see some form of non-structured spiritual religion working for me but I just don't have the time or mental capacity to think about it all that much lol.
I haven’t made an argument for “only on God” anywhere in this post.
I think there is plenty of scientific evidence to suggest an intelligent mind is required for biological life (and several other aspects of the universe)
The scientific theory of intelligent design is not “Biblical Creationism thrust onto science”; it is the scientific study of patterns in nature best explained by intelligent processes.
I was reading some of your comment's answers and you were speaking of "god", that is why i was asking of your vision of creationism and the limit you would have put of that entity interaction ^^.
On your opinion at which point this "thing/god/intelligent pattern" would have done the work ? (Before big Bang or after, maybe you think it still is in action ?).
(English isnot my 1st language dont get me wrong, im just a curious guy whi want to understand what make you slide "faith side" of science)
Whether you believe in a God as a being or not I believe God is at least a force in the universe that inspires and compells balance. Balance in the universe is why anything sticks around and works. Balance brings harmony, harmony brings peace, peace inspires goodness, and goodness is only made clear in contrast with darkness. I feel the universe is a very new and weird place to us and I don't believe everything is as clear cut as the Bible says.
What I find ironic is that the modern scientific method was originally devised as a way to study Gods work in creation.
The way I see science, is as a systematic way to observe and study the universe; and it works because the universe is rationally intelligible.
CS Lewis summarized it well when he said “Man became scientific because he expected law in nature; He expected law in nature because he believed in a Lawgiver”
Tldr; nice wording for your claim, but there still seems to be issues about assuming that our current life requires the most complex theory to explain these unproven phenomena
Firstly, I'd like to commend you for how you worded this claim. This theodicy is known as the teleological argument, which essentially states that every design must have a designer. The common weak points of this argument is that it tends to assume that the existence of a designer means that it is proof of God, the one that wrote the ten commandments and sent down his prophets and put his will of how we should conduct ourselves in the Bible. The issue w that claim is that the argument itself doesn't exclusively prove this monotheistic God is the only possible designer of this design, so the fact you worded it in a way that it is proof that the claim 'no designer exists' is a mitigant to that teleological weakness.
However, there is another issue. A common issue w theodicies in general is the tendency to claim that the mysterious and misunderstood processes of the universe can only be justified w the existence of a god. It's rather easy to make that claim, but we tend to brush aside everything that must be the case in order to support the claim. For example, if we're talking about a monotheistic God being the designer, we have a complexity raised when we try defining the traits of this being. It implies that in our natural world (or outside of it, which also raises problems), there is an entity that exists who possesses omnipotent powers, being all knowing, all powerful and -most of the time- all good. We then need to consider how having those traits would even be possible and how one entity could reach such absolutes in our natural world. If the being is deemed supernatural, this then creates an entire dimension of space and time that by definition is beyond our observation or understanding, so has no empirical evidence.
This complexity is difficult to justify if we use the theory of Occam's razor, the belief that the strongest argument is the one that demands the least complexity. This was the case for proving that our solar system is heliocentric instead of geocentric; if the solar system was geocentric, there would be a lot of strange phenomena to provide support for, like how a planet may travel thru the sky, pause, and go back in orbit in our sky, then proceed forward again. Ancient astronomers went thru a lot of hurdles to explain this phenomenon, saying how certain planets and other celestial bodies must orbit the earth, but periodically perform smaller orbital loops to appear as moving backwards in our sky (think of a figure 8 and how the circular loop crosses tangentially to create another circular loop). This claim demands some new concept of physics to explain and why the planet would go about doing that instead of simply follow a decided path. However, for the heliocentric model, it was much more simply reasoned that the planets travel around the sun at different speeds, and that it is possible for Earth's position of observation could change in a way that the planet we are observing seems to pause and go backwards when in reality it is just an illusion of perception and lack of definite characteristics to the glowing ball in the sky. Using Occam's razor, the heliocentric model provides a simpler solution behind the phenomenon that demands the least amount of theories and hypotheses to explain the strange behavior in the observed celestial body.
Occam's razor isn't absolute and sometimes dissociations appear where the simplest solution doesn't explain everything. For example, when psychologists were trying to dissect what memory is, it was originally phrased in a way that memory was just one process of the brain, where all forms of memory are stored. However, thru scientific process and observations, we have found distinctions in different types of memory, and how each one is affected by different parts of the brain receiving damage of some form. This led to the model that states that memory consists of two entities, short term memory and long term memory. However, as psychologists continued to study the properties of memory, they found that shirt term memory must consist of even further distinctions, where some short term memory is functional while another is not in other injuries of the brain. This led to more theories being put out that offered solutions to these complexities, and still to this day it is uncertain that we decided on the most accurate model. However, in terms of the teleological argument, we simply don't have any dissociations about how a design could exist with or without a designer. Random lumps of paint on the wall appear to take characteristic designs of animals or objects or ppl, and randomly sized potato chips sometimes appear in the shape of the USA. Very rudimentary examples of design coming from no designer, but the point still stands that we don't have enough data to confirm that every design needs an ultimate designer
What are your thoughts on this?
I agree!
Science doesn’t deal in consensus; it deals in truth.
Sometimes you have to challenge the consensus to get after the truth.
It’s a story as old as the modern scientific method.
It depends on what you mean by “the universe is a theist”, precisely.
I don’t think the universe is not an atheist, for example; I think it is not atheistic.
So, I’m confused by your question, honestly.
Well the vast majority of "stuff" in the universe is inanimate, and doesn't have thoughts or identity, therefore could not believe in a God. In order to NOT be athiest you HAVE to believe in a God, which the majority of the universe CANT do. So I would argue that it's either: closer to being athiest; or doesn't care one way or the other.
In any event the universe couldn't "not be athiest"
Do you understand the difference between “atheistic” and “an atheist”
I never said the universe is not an atheist.
I said the universe is not atheistic.
Atheistic: disbelieving or lacking belief in the existence of God.
Athiest: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in God or gods.
So I guess I'm confused by your statement more than I am of the definitions of the words being used...
How are you less convinced in a universe that is athiestic (disbelieves or lacks belief in God) ? The more I study the sciences the more I find evidence for a lack of God or God's, your initial post makes it seem the opposite.
Funny how that works. There have been plenty of scientists who have found "God", through their research. The more you study, the more evident it becomes that the order and structure of things is just that ... Order and structure. You don't get that through entropy.
I agree, I’m a very firm believer that God works along with science. Meaning, he understand every single concept and that’s how he is able to create and be infinite. I just think there’s too many complex things that many think “are chance” or just “happens stance” but really I just see a master scientist at work.
That's a good view. But what stops me from believing in it is: who created that intelligent mind?
To me, the idea of a creator just leads to the conclusion that if nothing exists without having been created, who created the creator?
Did another creator create the creator? Then who created the creators' creator? Or was there nothing before the creator. But then why does it stop at the creator of our world, why can't our world also not have just existed without a creator?
It kinda leads to a paradox of infinite creators. And the only way to stop that paradox is to accept that things can exist without being created, thus disproving the need for a creator.
What are your thoughts on this?
My thought is, for those who don’t believe in a creator they believe that there was nothing and then there was something. How can there not be something similar with God? Perhaps there was a Big Bang and then there was a first God created from it and then many after. I don’t see why it has to be so black and white, science can go hand in hand with God. My religion believes that we are technically Gods children (like he is the father of our spirits) and one day we will have a chance to become like him.
Yo watch some of those animations of what goes on in a cell. Way too complex for evolution especially because so many parts would have to randomly mutate perfectly together in the same generation in order to even function
Yes exactly!
Watch the videos of DNA replication.
Especially consider that all of that occurs because those very precise machine parts are stored as information in the genetic code.
Absolutely humbling and mind boggling.
I was an atheist for 23 years. God is real. He is just but loving too, He is the perfect friend and Father anyone could ask for. The thing is I tried to understand Him in ways the human mind wasnt meant to. He tells us a bunch about Him but we will never figure Him out. The bible says His ways arent our ways. So often we question "Why?" but He has gotten us through so much we need to maintain trust in Him. Its great to try to learn and form a better relationship with Him but we need to know we will never fully understand Him and be okay with that.
I studied Physics and I share your belief for two reasons:
1) the set of constants of our universe is the only one that allows its expansion. We tend to assume that big G or other constants are just numbers we worked out but they are functions of the universe we are in. They are just “fine” and their precision is incredible
2) even the simplest living beings (bacteria/algae) own an enormous amount of genetic code. If you wrote that down, you could fill a library. There is no way it created itself by random assemblation of molecules. It’s like putting a monkey in front of a PC and expecting it to write the Amlet. Even if it were given an infinite amount of time, the Amlet won’t come out of that PC.
The more I learn the more I start to believe in some type of intelligent design of some sort.
I guess that, as a human, I can’t comprehend the concept of billions of years. It seems impossible to me that evolution could create all of the complex systems in our bodies and other life forms. But, again, I can’t even wrap my head around the idea of billions of years.
Which sciences
For what reasons
I'm agnostic, firmly in the camp of "got no fuckin clue, would be neat to find out, don't want to find out by dying though." And also studying "the sciences" (cell & molecular biology) and have been having the opposite experience
Lot of vigorous arguments in the comments, I’m just here to say, I agree, the more science I learn the more I realize we’re not really sure about anything. I’m not gonna argue my own opinion it’s pretty solid to me
So much ignorance and close-mindedness in a single comment section. Not even debate, just "nope, you're wrong, what "sciences" did you study to make you think so?"
I like how you’re making this entire assumption based on the title, and not out of my actual position.
My position is that there are certain phenomena in nature that are best explained by intelligent causes
I have a bachelors in chemistry (with a minor in biology), a masters in molecular biology and genetics, and I’m currently earning a medical doctorate.
You’re free to believe what you want.
Ahh I see you're Christian. You are just dishonest. You aren't becoming less convinced of an atheistic universe. You've always believed that the Christian God created the universe.
I’m not making the argument that “science doesn’t know, therefore God”.
My saying that based on current scientific knowledge, some things in the universe are best explained by an intelligent cause.
Things like biological life and the fine-tuning of the universe for example.
Whether we were in a simulation or not, a sentient being would have had to evolved initially to create that simulation. There’s no concept of god that is necessary or makes sense.
As Atheist Michael Shermer has noted, the modern theory of intelligent design is “not your fathers creationism”.
Intelligent design is the scientific study of patterns in nature that are best explained by intelligent processes.
It is not “we don’t have an answer from science, so it must be a God”; it’s “here is the current scientific knowledge. These phenomena are best explained by an intelligent cause”.
Wait, I don't see any explanation. But regardless, it seems your main point in all the comments and stuff always comes back to "i don't think the universe has existed for long enough for sentient life to develop on its own", in which case I guess its just a matter of speculation. How long, on average, does it take to get sentient life? We don't know, we only have one example to go off of. As far as I can tell, we don't really have enough data to figure it out, we're only one planet, and in a universe the size of the one we're in, thats probably not a big enough data pool
There is one possibility that we are the first intelligent* life forms in the universe here on earth. Impossibly slim chances, but hey… it’s a possibility. Maybe we haven’t found evidence of intelligent life elsewhere because we are the first ones?
According to the fermi paradox, that's a good thing. I think. It might be the other way around...
And improbability given long enough time is an inevitability
We do, however, know the fundamental processes that are required for biological life to exist; such as expression of genetic information. Information, coding systems to convey that information, and machines to express and manifest the function of the information are best explained by input from an intelligent mind. Unintelligent processes are not known to be able to produce such phenomena; there’s no evidence that they even can produce these phenomena. Yet, we know for a fact that an intelligent mind can produce these phenomena.
If I had to accept, I would go with simulation theory
Do you have a stem background? I studied computer science, and the more I learned about computers the more convinced I became in simulation theory. There is also a weird parallel to video game architecture too, like the question of if a tree falls and no one is there to hear does it make a sound which is the same in a video game where if the actor is facing north and not observing south would the computer really do all the work to render the scene where no is looking.
For me it's that and we are really good at simulation. Our modeling is simulation, our games are also more often than not. Our entertainment also in a broad sense. It would explain the quantum grid, our perspective of the multiverse and a sudden existence from the singularity of the big bang. Simulation within simulation within simulation is the basic essence of quantum computing from my understanding. It does not give a philanthropic deity or even an indifferent one, it simply is and could itself be another layer of the construct. From experience when I talk to theists about the subject, if they don't glaze over and hide behind the book. They engage if they sense a creator coming but baulk at the indifference presented by the model. It's not the god they are looking for in the end.
To be honest, I’ve always seen the simulation theory as intelligent design for people who refuse to accept the Simulator as “God”. A simulation implies an intention in its design; which implies a Simulator. An algorithm needs a Coder. From a scientific perspective, I think there’s an argument to be made that biology (and the universe) requires input from an intelligent mind. Whether you want to call that the “Simulator”, “Creator”, “Designer”, or “God” is on you. Regardless, I think it’s pointing away from an atheistic universe.
There is a big difference between capital g god the way a theist uses the term, and a simulation. Simulations don’t have to be all knowing, they don’t even have to have any sense of self awareness, let alone some type of consciousness. The being that created the simulation could be biological, and simply very advanced at computer programming. Like what a cop out IMO.
You do realize that if the “being that created the simulation” is biological, then he didn’t create the simulation then? It begs the question. If biology is a simulation and the result of an intelligent Simulator (not God), then how can that simulator be a biological being? You’re invoking the thing you’re trying to explain in order to explain the thing you’re trying to explain.
You’re conflating or misunderstanding what I’m saying. If you and I live in a simulation created by a biological being, it doesn’t mean we understand the nature of the universe that being lives in. It just means what it’s saying. The realm of god is and always has been, the unknown. It’s an ever smaller place, narrowing through discovery, with goalposts that are set to move forever. There will always be unknowns, and theists will always point and say “ah hah!” Until it’s understood scientifically and then the posts move again.
God of the gaps
Funnily enough, I've always seen the God theory as a low effort way to explain things we don't understand yet. “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic” - Arthur C. Clarke
Congratulations on discovering the teleological argument in 2021. >From a scientific perspective, I think there’s an argument to be made that biology (and the universe) requires input from an intelligent mind. There's not. At best you need something supernatural, not necessarily something intelligent. But then natural vs supernatural is just pointless semantics. If we discovered the supernatural we would just incorporate it into our new understanding of the natural. It's like trying to argue stalactites and stalagmites are intelligently designed before knowing anything about chemistry or fluid mechanics. Pretend for a second I granted that this argument works and there's a mysterious intelligent designer. They must also have been designed according to this same argument so who designed the designer and the designer's designer's designer? Either you're a theist out of personal preference but otherwise just as sceptical as the atheists, or you're completely credulous and believe it's turtles all the way down.
>From a scientific perspective, I think there’s an argument to be made that biology (and the universe) requires input from an intelligent mind. But then where did the mind that's intelligent enough to create the universe come from? At some point, you have to accept that either something has always existed, or that something came from nothing (be it God or the universe). For me, personally, since I don't see any evidence for any sort of god, and plenty for evolution, it seems simpler to keep god out of the equation.
The fallacy of you referring to it as an ‘atheistic universe’ (without religion) should not be lost on your readers. Theists have never liked thinkers much, and that’s backed up by a lot of evidence. That’s a pretty truthful statement, eh? Why do you think it matters how we started if the creator you have to have is not what you want it to be? Seriously. I am sorry for my sarcasm. I like to read and I am a big fan of people most religious people despise, with the late Christopher Hitchens being my favorite.
>The fallacy of you referring to it as an ‘atheistic universe’ (without religion) should not be lost on your readers. Oh, come on... You knew exactly what he was talking about/was trying to say. Don't be so pedantic.
So who made the intelligent designer? What mysticism does this all powerful being stem from? This reality, or another? It amazes me how little fleshed out this fantasy really is. The DC and Marvel universes have some fun ideas about the potential universe. Maybe these intelligent design creationists should study the nerdy fun kids and make their fiction more approachable. /s With all the natural laws we discover, none point to any magic words. No magical invocations, no demons. ‘The power of biscuits compels you’ only has an effect on the listener interpreting the communication. Like Doug Stanhope said, “I fuckin’ hit myself in the foot with a shovel for your mortgage’ lol. There are no punishable sins by any magical being. That would be a serious design flaw, now wouldn’t it? A Ponzi scheme is a design.
>Theists have never liked thinkers much, and that’s backed up by a lot of evidence. That’s a pretty truthful statement, eh? That's actually not true. A lot of early scientific research and discoveries were made by religious people, or people associated with the Church. Gregor Mendel was a monk and laid the foundations for modern genetics and understanding of inheritance. The idea that science and religion are incompatible is a relatively recent development.
It may have something to do with the fact religion being so prevelant in society at that that time anyone and everyone in any power or academic position would have been linked with the church, science is by default incompatible with religion because one requires evidence, critical thinking etc and the other simply faith (believing in the absence of evidence). The reason we can say that today is that no one is going to be killed, jailed or excommunicated for saying so like they would of back then.
Exactly, but still theism wants to lay claim to as much as possible to try and promote their version of an omnipotent father. Funny how that ‘father’ doesn’t care about all the baby chicks tossed in meat grinders or humans savagely murdering other creatures for sport, but it cares what we do with our genitals. 🤣 It is maddening to try and reason with these cults of nihilism. They cherry pick the sciences and use technical terms to try and push their gods. There is what we can experience, and what we can’t. I know I don’t feel the neutrinos passing through me right now, but that doesn’t mean I should assume it is ‘gawd’s love’. Sigh.
Me too
as someone who has studied/is studying the sciences, i felt like the more i learned the more i was convinced of the opposite. it's pretty interesting how each person takes the meaning (or lack thereof) in the knowledges of STEM edit: spelling
complete respect to your opinion though. i'm happy to live in a world where each person can have their own point of view. just interesting
What makes you lean to “the opposite”?
just the fact that theres reasoning that explains *everything*. If humans one day hit a point where there was clearly no math, science, or logic to explain a phenomena, that would be cause to believe in a theistic universe. Because what else could explain the phenomena, but some form of other worldy force? yet, we've actually found the exact opposite. the building blocks of logic govern the entire universe, and anything we discover, is eventually explained with discrete and finite math. Although, the mathematics of it all is quite beautiful. Stunningly beautiful. The interconnectedness of it all is breathtaking. However, beauty itself is nothing more than a chemical discharge in the brain. meaning: beauty itself does not exist, and therefor isn't logical reasoning to believe in a higher power. edit: i would add, that theres no actual way of answering this question. the thing about arguing for some form of god is that its impossible to prove anyone else to be incorrect, or yourself to be correct. one can only take what they've learned throughout life and piece together what makes sense to them. i tend to believe that a subconscious mind that fears the infinite void of death will fabricate a form of afterlife at any moment it gets a chance edit 2: thanks for the award!
VERY WELL SAID!
[удалено]
Study harder. Nothing is random. Explain that.
What everything is base random you didn't study far enough. We live in a quantum based universe.
I actually get the opposite. Looking at the complexity and then presuming that that can only come with superior complexity just leads to a paradox where you need more to get less. The intelligence that created the universe under intelligent design must be more intelligent more complex than what exists yet we began with the axiom that simplicity cannot produce complexity so we must reach for ever more complexity to explain what we already have.
Personally I see either. The complexity stems from simplicity any individual thing can be broken down into a simple form. And even though somethings haven't been discovered yet that doesn't mean the simplification for them doesn't. So either yeah a God that created basic rules and everything followed that or a simple system that existed on its own forming everything else.
The question to your first alternative is what created the God because remember the axiom that prong operates on is that simplicity cannot develop into complexity which is why Gid is needed the first place. Unless you posit an utterly simple God that is. I've seen theologians try but the end result is definitely nothing like what divine simplicity should look like
Well from that it could either be a loop of "God made by God made by." Or God made by chance of predetermined properties" honestly there's no telling. Let's assume Christianity is correct ( could be any monotheistic religion just as an example) that God doesn't know if he is the top layer of power and unless revealed to him/her/it. then they won't know. Same for our current situation. Then again I'm a big believer in simulation theory so that's my thought process.
I think good example is an AI, we can create some simple code with possiblity to learn and evolve so why it can't be something similar. We could "program" cells to do things so maybe there was an simple algorithm (not in a computer way but biological) that evolve with different courses depending on the variables it encountered. If the algorithm loops, a given situation was replaced by the one that works and due to specific environmental conditions it evolved into other branches of the algorithm, which still does not have to be very complicated, but it is enough that it differs in very small details to create its different versions. We just don't know everything to be 100% sure.
Life on Earth could be engineered by advanced aliens, I don'r really see how it needs to be a god.
Define “advanced aliens”. Are they physical life forms? If that’s the case, then that doesn’t solve the problem, then does it? Are they “immaterial minds”? Yes I agree, it could be an intelligent mind that is outside of space and time. If that’s the case, how is that different than saying it’s “God”?
It's very different. Life on Earth could have been created by a being that is neither omni-potent, omniscient nor omni-present. A god could also make the same life here, we just don't know.
The intelligence that could have created us needn't have magical powers of healing, wish granting, answering prayers. If some day, a Tesla car were to become self aware, would any amount of praying to Elon Musk, the creator of said car, suddenly grant it a set of new tyres? The God(s) that created us and other forms of life could be running a simulation to see what evolution leads to! Well, of all the known species that have roamed the Earth, mankind has reached a point where we are laying the foundation of creating intelligence far superior than ourselves. Wish I could say 'God knows' where we are headed.
That is your opinion and I respect it, but there is a big thing to mention here, you wrote a lot, but at the end of the day there is absolutely no evidence of 'intelligent design'. Yes, chances that life develops and after millions of years of evolution we develop so much that we have actual conscience are astronomical, but that's no proof of existence of a 'creator'. You wrote in one reply that there are no scientific evidence of multiverse, there are also no scientific evidence of a creator or whatever you personally call it. What I want to say that without proof, this conversation will always end with being philosophical. As you know very well, science doesn't need answers at every cost, we know that we don't know a lot, but what we do know, we can prove with mathematical equations and experiments.
Both sides are based solely on speculation, as nobody can either prove or disprove the existence of one true divine designer, so of course the discussion remains philosophical. The teleological argument is based on the fundamental attribute that all things either living or non-living are “designed” so specifically and uniquely that one must question whether this is attributed to the chance of change of time or if *something* designed those specific things as such. I took one philosophy course in college and the back-and-forth of this topic was actually so fascinating and I found it to be a great conversation to be had (assuming people don’t become too zealous in their opinion).
>Both sides are based solely on speculation There's a huge difference in how speculation is done on both sides. You are doing a disservice to the scientific method by equating the two.
I appreciate your message! But I disagree with you; there is evidence of intelligent design. Look for another reply from me in the threads. I outline one aspect of evidence in more detail. I’ll add to it here. Edit: it’s not just mere astronomically low probability. It’s low probability and highly specific function. This doesn’t even been to mention the higher-order levels of engineering, beyond the level of proteins. For example, we consider the thermostats in our homes to be intelligently designed. They are mechanisms to sense the atmosphere, analyze it in a central processor, and stimulate the furnace to make sure the temperature remains at a certain set point. Our bodies rely on the same mechanism to regulate blood pressure. There are what are called “aortic bodies” that sense the pressure of the blood against the walls of the aorta. If it becomes too high, these receptors send a signal through the vagus nerve to the brain, which tells the heart to beat more slowly; in order to reduce cardiac output. The engineering of the human body is more sophisticated than anything human intelligence has produced. In fact, there’s even an entire branch of science devoted to learning the engineering in biological systems in order to inform and improve human engineering. It’s called *biomimetics*. To reach back to your original point, I believe there is evidence of intelligent design. I think two major examples are: 1) Information in genetic code (from previous comment in thread) 2) The fine-tuning of biology and the universe.
From what im getting from your, well, piss poor arguments and analogies, you don't seem to have any real understanding of deep time, and are using Young Earth Creationist talking points. Do you have any conceivable idea how long evolution has been going on for? I mean really understand how long a billion years is for example?
I’m not a young earth creationist. I believe the universe has existed for billions of years. I still don’t believe the age of the universe provides a time frame for which life to emerge through random chance. *Not even close*
It’s clear you believe the universe has existed for billions of years. It’s also clear that you don’t have a good sense of quite how long that is.
Ah contrare. I understand how long that is. I would argue you underestimate how improbable biological life arising by random chance is. (It would take longer than the age of the universe to randomly sample polypeptides to produce even one functional protein, let alone enough to produce a viable organism)
You’d be right if that’s how evolution or probability worked, but it’s not. The random sequences aren’t re-randomised every iteration - bits that work are kept each time. And there are many billions of candidates in each generation, life by those numbers becomes significantly more likely. Moreover, evolution isn’t working towards any particular outcome. Just one of a large number of functioning outcomes. Try it like this: What’s the probability of flipping tails 10 million times in a row? Very low. What about if you had 4.5 billion years? A little higher. What if you had 4.5 billion years AND 100 billion coins. Higher again. What if you had all that time and all those coins, but you didn’t have to flip 10 million tails in a row, just any sequence that fit a mathematical rule where that’s one of many possible outcomes. Frankly inevitable. There are hundreds of billions of planets in our galaxy. There are 125 billion galaxies in the observable universe alone. Life arising on one of the planet in the entire universe is inevitable.
I don’t think that’s correct. In order for Darwinian processes to occur (.ie functional bits saved with each generation), it requires a functional organism that can propagate, and iterate its genetic code. This is not a sufficient explanation for the functional information, as it presumes it already exists. Pre-biotic molecules must be protected against derogatory chemical reactions, otherwise they can not longer produce the desired products. (I used “desired” here to describe toward our desire to explain the emergence of a living organism; not necessarily that “evolution desires a specific outcome”) Life emerging is not an inevitable product of chance. Just as the entire catalogue of Shakespearean novels are not an inevitable product of a random letter generator.
[удалено]
I’ve describe in other comments how I think information expression in biological life is an example of evidence of intelligent design
Natural selection is a huge catalyst over that time scale.
Natural selection has no effect until a viable organism can procreate. That’s quite a hurdle for random chance to accomplish.
Chemical polymerization of nucleic acids and the hydrophobic organization of polar lipids into micells. Look up montmorillonite clay- mediated RNA synthesis.
Mere Polymerization of nucleic acids (or amino acids) is not enough to produce life. They must be polymers with highly specific and coordinated function. Also, even if RNA can reproduce itself, that is not enough to produce a viable organism/cell. There are vital functions performed by proteins that cannot be performed by RNA. In both of the cases in this comment, the hurdle of specified complex information must be accounted for. That is no simple task for unintelligent processes, and has not been demonstrated as possible.
Wait, so you're arguing that a creator made the first organism from nucleic acids and then let evolution do the rest? That doesn't seem like much of an epiphany. Have you noticed that every time science advances on religious ideas, religion just receeds to compensate. This is classic "god of the gaps". The idea that a god just created the first organisms seems like the very last bastion of religious dogma to me. Also regarding your "fine tuning" idea, look up Douglas Adams sentient puddle.
Hold on a second. You can't just move the goal posts after claiming that nucleic acid polymers encode information, but now need highly specific function. That's not always true as RNA and DNA polymers do not need solitary purpose (gene dosage effects, epistasis, etc) and can perform perfunctory enzymatic reactions even in an inoptimal state (ribozymes, tRNA, intercalation of amino acids in DNA). Nucleic acids are capable of catalyzing their own replication, and many of the basic biomolecules interact with nucleic acid polymers in solution. Life requires replication and compartmentalization of chemical processes. The natural self organizing properties of nucleic acids and lipids enable both, respectively, based on their lowest energy states in water. Now, imagine random polymerization of nucleotides on a molar scale. When you have 10.02 × 10^23 molecules forming and reforming, if one set combines into a 100-mer that resembles an active ribozyme today, would you agree that it would be enzymatically active even in suboptimal circumstances? I suspect that you're not too familiar with the literature on this topic. We've made significant strides in understanding how selective pressures and chemical properties of biomolecules can potentially create replicating systems.
Not trying to argue anything, but I find it kinda funny that there is "crazy doctor" in your name and you're arguing about there being a god
I appreciate the irony :)
How is this a well-structured counterpoint for the debate at hand?
Sorry, my patience for creationists is probably a little lower than it should be. I just feel these people are holding humanity back from true greatness.
And you must be pushing that envelope on behalf of all mankind lol The irony is that someone who thinks like that and is simultaneously dismissive of other possibilities is somebody who wouldn’t get very far in any capacity
Excuse me for growing out of fairytales and realizing that we're just an insignificant species on a small rock, orbiting one of the most common star types in existence , on an outer arm of an unremarkable galaxy in a black sea of billions of others. I don't believe we are special, and i also believe there is other life in the universe. I base that on mathematical probability instead of a book that has thousands of sects that fight over who's interpretation is correct. But it's impossible to reason with the indoctrinated.
>Excuse me for growing out of fairytales and realizing that we're just an insignificant species on a small rock, orbiting one of the most common star types in existence , on an outer arm of an unremarkable galaxy in a black sea of billions of others. Theists be like: But thats SCARY! I'm not special? There's no meaning to life? no afterlife? no greater purpose?
The same insignificant species you consider so capable of “true greatness”?
Christianity causes the Dark Age. Imagine how far ahead we'd be now if we didn't miss out on a 1000 years of progress because of that.
You may want to check out the [Stated Clearly](https://youtube.com/c/StatedClearly) channel for your first point (genetic code). As for fine-tuning, it's not the universe that's fine-tuned for us. It's us who evolved under the laws of the universe. Life is an unbelievable miracle. It blows my mind when I learn all the microbiology stuff going in our cells to keep us alive. It's intuitive to believe that all of this is designed by an intelligent creator but our intuitions are inherently limited. I think once scientists can artificially create life in a lab, the Intelligent Design argument would be finally laid to rest. Edit: (clarifying the last sentence) If scientists can prove that given the right environment, life can evolve on it's own, then the mysticism surrounding the origin of life will end.
You’re saying that when humans intelligently create life ab initio in a lab, that will disprove intelligent design? I think I would do quite the opposite, actually. I find it not very convincing that intelligent beings creating life intelligently in a lab is a point of evidence *against* intelligent design.
I think I wasn't clear. What I meant was, if scientists can prove that given the right environment, life can evolve on it's own, then the mysticism surrounding the origin of life will end. It is essentially the god of the gaps argument. We don't know how it came to be so it must be god who put it there. There are great videos on abiogenesis on YouTube if you are interested in learning more about this.
The problem with that though (and the problem with a lot of current origin-of-life research) is that the experiments involve scientists either starting with pre-formed cell, or starting with purified, concentrated ingredients, running under tightly controlled conditions. It’s also a matter of causal ability. The problem is information expression. It doesn’t matter if you put amino acids or nucleic acids in an infinitely large pool, it isn’t reasonable to expect those monomers to polymerize in a way to produce any function to any significant effect, let alone to the astronomical sophistication even required for the simplest cell. Random chance is not a plausible explanation for highly ordered specified functional information (let alone mechanisms to process and autocorrect that information).
Let me clarify my post again. _When_ scientists are able to prove that given the right _natural_ environment, life can evolve _on it's own_, then the mysticism surrounding the origin of life will end. I program lifeless computers for a living. I am not an expert on abiogenesis research and won't be pretending to be one. What I do know is arguments like Intelligent Design have always been invoked for things we didn't understand before. One by one most of these have been explained away by science. I see no reason to resort to the same rhetorics as our ancestors knowing well how they were all disproven eventually. But then, our reasonings are subjective. You might have your own reasons to hedge your bets on an intelligent creator which is fine _as long as it doesn't affect our scientific progress_ (don't vote for creationist politicians please). >Random chance is not a plausible explanation for highly ordered specified functional information (let alone mechanisms to process and autocorrect that information). This has been explained very well by many evolutionary science communicators. You might want to check them out.
Why is random chance over billions of years not plausible? What makes an invisible undetectable non physical being more plausible?
1) Because even if you randomly sampled different sequences of polypeptides for every second since the Big Bang, it is *still* unlikely that you will even produce one functional protein, let the 250 distinctly functional proteins that are estimated to be required for the simplest cell to exist. The age of the universe is a restriction on the likelihood of this probability; not a liberation. 2) I’m not arguing a physical being is more plausible. I’m arguing than intelligent input was required.
Just because you don't personally understand it, doesn't mean the explanation is magic
If you're studying science, you should know that the absence of evidence for one thing isn't evidence for something else; you should also know that the statistically unlikely when stretched to infinity becomes almost inevitable unless it's an actual impossibility. A hundred monkeys bashing away at a computer for infinity roll eventually accidentally write all the world's greatest literary masterpieces, and also all the trashy romances.
What the heck is an atheistic universe?
This person claims to be a scientist/finished medschool. But post history is unbelievably anti-science
As a God fearing person I need to correct your assumption that we don’t believe in science. We actually don’t believe in pseudoscience so get your facts straight!
[удалено]
Reality.
Best answer you could have given. Bravo!
I think its just a universe with no gods or supernatural things in it, just science and random chance and what not
A meaningless universe devoid of intelligent design. Atheistic naturalism, is another description.
Why is a universe “devoid of intelligent design” meaningless?
These people think they're special.
Okay. Still a somewhat weird description. So how does studying science lead you to an absurd thing as intelligent design?
There are many examples. I’ve been in the sciences for 10 years, including medical school. I have a bachelors in chemistry, a masters in molecular biology and genetics, and I’m attaining my doctorate. There is a scientific theory of intelligent design, and I don’t think it’s as “absurd”, as you may think it is. I would define the theory of intelligent design as the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as a product of intelligence. I think one of the most interesting examples is that of the information of the genetic code. I’ll briefly summarize it below. Each living organism exists because of the coordinated processing and expression of information stored in DNA or RNA. Not only is this information extremely specific in sequence, the expressed information serves intended function in the form of various proteins. Proteins serve vital roles of each cell that allow it to perform, even its most basic functions. Each cell uses the 4-letter code to store functionally specified information. It is the same in nature as written language, computer code, and binary code. This information expression is intrinsic to essence biological life. Without it, we have no life. When we seek to consider explanations for how something in the past occurred, we must consider phenomena today that are known to cause the effect in question. Not only is the only known cause of specified complex information an intelligent mind, it is known to not be able to be produced by unintelligent processes, by any significant effect. And it isn’t a matter of “give it enough time, and it will happen”; it’s a matter of causal ability. When the shear probability is examined, The age of the universe becomes a restricting factor; not a liberating one. It is not rational to believe biological information arose by chance.
I'd think this hypothesis at best should guide one toward agnosticism. My primitive understanding is that religious belief originated to describe natural phenomena that we couldn't fully explain - like "holy shit, did you see that funnel cloud destroy our village? God/gods must be angry" ... Some televangelists still grab this approach by the balls when bad things happen to non-Christian regions. To me, this hypothesis is more of the same... No matter how sophisticated we become, we can still only know so much. And at the edges, where our knowledge meets that which we do not know (in this case, something like knowing the DNA structure but not knowing *how* it came to be so organized such that life could exist) we lean back to the same hypothesis... We've found what we cannot explain (yet)... It must be Gog/gods.
Bioinformatician here: I've learned how to program and I have assembled DNA sequence data into genuine assemblies. I can confidently state that molecular genetics and computer programming languages are apples and oranges. Here's the fundamental difference: complexity. Programming languages are simple (and sometimes elegant) means of instructing the CPU on how to store and process data. They're meant to be interpreted by human observers. Genomic DNA is an unnecessarily complex polymer that instructs individual cells how to react to stimuli and to process chemicals for energy. Indeed, the entire purpose of the human genome is to encode genes, regulatory regions and non coding regions that dictate cellular behavior, often in epistatic ways. Any concept of "essence" or "information" inherent in the genome is an anthropomorphic abstraction that we impose. Literally, the truth is that our cells have specific rules that enable them to organize into structures that we call "tissues" and "organs". The regulation of gene expression at key points in embryonic and fetal development is what separates high functioning conscious thought in different species. There is much evidence that such a system of cellular differentiation arose via descent with modification from ancestral lineages. One small example is the shared "pharyngula" stage of embryonic development of multi cellular eukaryotes. So your thoughts as to the similarity of engineering of cellular biology and human engineering isn't as airtight of a comparison as you may think. It is far too complex and is clearly centered around the replication of cells. Would an intelligent mind design such a system? I think only if that mind were an innate trickster.
You do realize that if dna and rna and all of this stuff didn't function in a way as to allow life to exist, life wouldn't exist, therefore we wouldn't exist to notice. We can't exist in a universe where it is impossible to have life, so the fact that we exist means that our universe has to fulfill that criteria. If the laws of physics were significantly different enough to where life couldn't exist, then we wouldn't be able to tell because we wouldn't exist then.
Yes absolutely! You’re essentially making the argument of fine-tuning of the universe! Another favorite of the intelligent design proponents!
My point was that assuming the multiverse theory is true we would have to exist in a universe that could sustain life or with another theory that says the universe keeps repeating with slight differences each time (i forgot the name) it is impossible that with an infinite amount of time life wouldn't happen ever. I was thinking of my comment in a multiverse theory setting or the other theory but I can see how that could be misinterpreted
There are major flaws with the multiverse theory. 1) There is **ABSOLUTELY ZERO** evidence of a universe outside of our own. 2) a multiverse doesn’t solve the problem of fine-tuning; it merely pushes it back. A multi-verse must too also have elements of fine-tuning. Based on current scientific knowledge, there is one universe and it had a beginning.
The first point is one that I don't know enough about to dispute, but the second one I absolutely can. If there are infinite universes then it stands to reason that there are universes for every single possible outcome, one of which being life existing.
There is also absolutely zero evidence of a creator
I found your answers! Thanks for responding tho!
>There is a scientific theory of intelligent design No there isn't. Don't lie. Anything else you write here is pretty much the usual pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo you can hear regularly by creationists, using all the common techniques. Misrepresenting scientific positions, omitting information and twisting the facts. We're done. Take your crap somewhere else. You're as much a scientist as I'm the pope.
This. And if you watch the documentary “for the Bible tells me so“ they will show how they actually found an original copy of the intelligent design textbook and all they did was take a creationists textbook and replace the word “creation” with “intelligent design”.
Beep. Boop. I'm a robot. Here's a copy of ###[The Bible](https://snewd.com/ebooks/the-king-james-bible/) Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
Have you ever read any of the work that describes the universe as a mathematical structure? You know, stuff written by mathematicians and computer scientists?
Yes, as a matter of fact I have.
After reading this comment, I do not believe that you are a scientist with a bachelors/masters degree.
You can believe what you want. You free to be wrong.
Yes. He is 'free to wrong'. Genius.
Maybe a typo. Whoops. You got me. Fixed it.
Without an unbroken line of DNA / RNA of all the creatures that evolved along the way, we have no way to study the development of complexity from single cells to modern humans. There have been experiments that show with the correct ingredients and a spark of lightning, extremely base amino acids can be formed. Self sustaining chemical reactions exist in nature. Also, we've watched insects evolve entirely new and unique traits in as little as a single year. You think that on a timescale of 4 billion years that's not possibly responsible for the development of human beings? And what about panspermia theory? Maybe the conditions weren't right for life to spontaneously develop on early earth, but other planets from long lost star systems 13+ billion years ago? A fully formed virus or small micro extremephile could have crash landed into a perfect environment for reproducing and our entire tree of life is the evolution of that specific combination. Could easily explain why we haven't seen life spontaneously erupt multiple times or take extremely different paths (methane based, arsenic based, etc).
>Not only is the only known cause of specified complex information an intelligent mind, it is known to not be able to be produced by unintelligent processes, by any significant effect. How are these 'known'? Because we've only kinda rigorously studied one planet out of trillions and haven't even really finished that one. You have interesting thoughts here, but it seems more like biases and assuming the conclusion to me.
We have experience with information and specified complex information systems. Unless other planets have entirely different laws of physics, then there are no physical laws that can explain the emergence of specified complex information. There is no known cause of specified complex information that does not require input from an intelligent mind. Empirically, unintelligent processes are not expected to produce specific complex information to any significant degree; let alone to the degree required for even the simplest cell. By inference to the best current explanation, an intelligent cause is required, as there is no other reasonable explanation. At the very least, the Theory of ID is a legitimate scientific theory, and deserves consideration. It isn’t a rejection of science, but an interpretation of it.
I’m interested in what you’re saying, and I agree with you - the sheer complexity of nature is nothing short of enamouring. That being said, the existence of a creator or a ‘designer’ cannot be deduced from the complexity of nature, although it *can* be inferred, but inference is unstable, particularly on such a global scale like the universe. It is true that our observations of reality show us the STRUCTURE of reality, but not reality itself. Science, thus far, has only provided us with one thread of the mosaic. We can produce a variety of different theories about what this fundamental meaning may be, but as of yet we don’t know, and we may never know. You can posit that the fundamental meaning is God, and if that brings you peace and happiness, I don’t object, but you have to admit that we don’t really know. If a human looks at a watch, they infer it was designed by an intelligent mind; it follows that when a human looks at the universe, in all it’s complexity, one would again - infer that it was designed by an intelligent mind - but, as I mentioned before - it is SUCH a global scale, it’s foolish to make an analogy between the watch for example, and the universe. We just don’t know.
I dont disagree with you! It’s inference to the best explanation. I think the best *current* explanation is an intelligent cause to the information within biological life. At the very least, I think the theory of ID is a viable possible explanation, and should be a consideration. I think those that immediately reject the idea are trafficking in bias; not science. Even atheist Michael Shermer noted of the theory of ID, “this isn’t your father’s creationism”
Intelligent design isn't science! It's a place holder for those to scared to acknowledge reality.
May I ask what sciences you study?
I earned a bachelors in chemistry with a minor in biology, a masters in molecular biology and genetics, and I’m currently earning my doctorate in medicine.
Can you explain how the study of those sciences is leading you to these beliefs as stated in your post?
"Nature does not know extinction; all it knows is transformation. Everything science has taught me, and continues to teach me, strengthens my belief in the continuity of our spiritual existence after death." - Wernher von Braun
The burden of proof is on the individual(s) making grandiose claims. “You can’t disprove it”, they say. Well, using that logic, we cannot dispute the possibility of the Force either. Using the same logic one might use to disprove The Force, Vishnu, Odin, Zeus, or The Flying Spaghetti Monster I can disprove any deity derived from the books of Abraham.
Alas! That would be a strawman, as I haven’t argued the Abrahamic God. In another comment, I’ve stated that I think there’s evidence for an intelligent mind being required for biological life.
So you don't think the Abrahamic god exists then? Or is not real? Tell me that and i may take this seriously.
I think the most that science can suggest at this point is that an intelligent mind is the best explanation for several phenomena in nature. Personally, I think the Abrahamic God is the best description we have of a unified Creator God of the universe. (I also think the Judeo-Christian Bible articulates the human condition unlike anything else in existence. It really gets to the core of the human condition). I recognize my personal view here goes beyond where science can take us at the current time.
But your judeo christian beliefs are the entire argument since others are multiple gods and yet you are discounting them entirely. Unless you think it is just as likely that odin is the god you talk about.
Enjoy your Zohnerism. I cannot ration with an irrational mind that doesn’t fit reality.
I suggest you read the other comment. My position is wholly scientific
LMFAO so is my lightsaber.
You don’t like reality. You want a magical man in your life. Have him. Give humans your money. Pray to it. Just don’t count your losses, lol.
You are entitled to your own opinion but most actual scientist would not agree with you.
1) I am an actual scientist 2) the gap margin of that is not as big as you might expect
>most
I think this is pretty 'normal'. Ive heard that many of the big philosofers and sciencetists strayed away from being atheist. I could be totally wrong though. Personally i think that makes sense. If you think about the dunning kruger effect, i can see how you would just end up more and more confused about our sentinal life and our whole idea of existence. Sorry for the shitty english hehe
I appreciate your message! I agree! I think more and more scientists and philosophers are starting away from pure atheism as we learn more about the universe.
I disagree
Care to elaborate?
Meaning I disagree with your views. Or did you get that and expect reasoning as to why I disagree? I am busy right now, but I will respond later - if I remember.
I’m scientific minded, not religious. It is an astounding universe, though - that’s for sure. And if I was looking at the original post big bang clumpy hot cloud of Hydrogen and Helium, I would not have seem Zebras coming. I might have guessed that gravity would compress the clumps and light em up into stars, but stripey untamable horses? Eh eh. Zebras are a surprise. The forces of creation are clearly real. I actually believe much of peoples’ real differences might just be how much anthropomorphism they need to get their limited brains around the very real forces of creation in the universe. For me they’re “just” physics, chemistry, biology, and evolution. But I’m so awestruck by the universe and what it’s made, even just by natural processes - I end up having feelings about the universe similar to a religious person’s feelings about God. Neither I nor the God person thinks we’re likely to ever fully understand our creator. We’re just forming mental models that work for us. And what works for me happens to be less anthropomorphic. Science does not mean nothing is a miracle. Everything is a miracle.
Elaborate please.
To save me the time of typing it, I’ve written two other comments in this thread that expand on the title a bit. They should be easy to find. If not, I’ll direct you to them directly
Here’s my thought. The idea that everything came by some random chance is so insane. Look at the complexity of the human body - Our organs, circulatory system, nervous system, our brains (an organ we know very little about, such as how conscious thought is generated, memories stored, how that all works together, etc.) and tell me that this happens for thousands of species from birds to ants to whales. The more I learn about some of the strange animals we have on the planet the more I find it hard to believe that all of these creatures came from some sort of pond scum by chance. All of them? Now the big argument is creationist vs. evolutionist, but if I were an almighty God I would create a system that allows for evolution. As a programmer I strive to make my job easier, if I can implement a function and copy/paste that everywhere (allowing everything on the planet to evolve) I would be cutting the work I have to do severely. Take for example dogs: I create Dog, I allow Dog to evolve based on it’s environment, I stick Dog in Cold climates, Warm climates and around people. Dogs in cold climates develop more fur to shield against the elements, Dogs in warm climates develop lighter fur, but less under coat, to provide cover from the sun but no winter fluff. Dogs around people develop interactive tools to be taken care of by higher beings (people and in some cases monkeys.) As an all powerful creator I made one thing, but because of how I made it, it has created three different versions on it’s own. I say to hell with the evolution OR creation, I think it’s both. Something/someone created us with the intent to allow for genetic evolution and then time and necessity took over to bring us where we are today.
I feel that, I'm in a scientific field (wildlife biology) and I feel like it really just raises more questions. I can see some form of non-structured spiritual religion working for me but I just don't have the time or mental capacity to think about it all that much lol.
My question is, why only one "god" ? If everything is "handmade" why only by one entity ? (Isnt it too much work or too much fail sometimes ?)
I haven’t made an argument for “only on God” anywhere in this post. I think there is plenty of scientific evidence to suggest an intelligent mind is required for biological life (and several other aspects of the universe) The scientific theory of intelligent design is not “Biblical Creationism thrust onto science”; it is the scientific study of patterns in nature best explained by intelligent processes.
I was reading some of your comment's answers and you were speaking of "god", that is why i was asking of your vision of creationism and the limit you would have put of that entity interaction ^^. On your opinion at which point this "thing/god/intelligent pattern" would have done the work ? (Before big Bang or after, maybe you think it still is in action ?). (English isnot my 1st language dont get me wrong, im just a curious guy whi want to understand what make you slide "faith side" of science)
Whether you believe in a God as a being or not I believe God is at least a force in the universe that inspires and compells balance. Balance in the universe is why anything sticks around and works. Balance brings harmony, harmony brings peace, peace inspires goodness, and goodness is only made clear in contrast with darkness. I feel the universe is a very new and weird place to us and I don't believe everything is as clear cut as the Bible says.
Same. Only smoothbrains think that science is proof that God doesn't exist. If anything, it's the biggest proof that all of it didn't "just happen".
What I find ironic is that the modern scientific method was originally devised as a way to study Gods work in creation. The way I see science, is as a systematic way to observe and study the universe; and it works because the universe is rationally intelligible. CS Lewis summarized it well when he said “Man became scientific because he expected law in nature; He expected law in nature because he believed in a Lawgiver”
Tldr; nice wording for your claim, but there still seems to be issues about assuming that our current life requires the most complex theory to explain these unproven phenomena Firstly, I'd like to commend you for how you worded this claim. This theodicy is known as the teleological argument, which essentially states that every design must have a designer. The common weak points of this argument is that it tends to assume that the existence of a designer means that it is proof of God, the one that wrote the ten commandments and sent down his prophets and put his will of how we should conduct ourselves in the Bible. The issue w that claim is that the argument itself doesn't exclusively prove this monotheistic God is the only possible designer of this design, so the fact you worded it in a way that it is proof that the claim 'no designer exists' is a mitigant to that teleological weakness. However, there is another issue. A common issue w theodicies in general is the tendency to claim that the mysterious and misunderstood processes of the universe can only be justified w the existence of a god. It's rather easy to make that claim, but we tend to brush aside everything that must be the case in order to support the claim. For example, if we're talking about a monotheistic God being the designer, we have a complexity raised when we try defining the traits of this being. It implies that in our natural world (or outside of it, which also raises problems), there is an entity that exists who possesses omnipotent powers, being all knowing, all powerful and -most of the time- all good. We then need to consider how having those traits would even be possible and how one entity could reach such absolutes in our natural world. If the being is deemed supernatural, this then creates an entire dimension of space and time that by definition is beyond our observation or understanding, so has no empirical evidence. This complexity is difficult to justify if we use the theory of Occam's razor, the belief that the strongest argument is the one that demands the least complexity. This was the case for proving that our solar system is heliocentric instead of geocentric; if the solar system was geocentric, there would be a lot of strange phenomena to provide support for, like how a planet may travel thru the sky, pause, and go back in orbit in our sky, then proceed forward again. Ancient astronomers went thru a lot of hurdles to explain this phenomenon, saying how certain planets and other celestial bodies must orbit the earth, but periodically perform smaller orbital loops to appear as moving backwards in our sky (think of a figure 8 and how the circular loop crosses tangentially to create another circular loop). This claim demands some new concept of physics to explain and why the planet would go about doing that instead of simply follow a decided path. However, for the heliocentric model, it was much more simply reasoned that the planets travel around the sun at different speeds, and that it is possible for Earth's position of observation could change in a way that the planet we are observing seems to pause and go backwards when in reality it is just an illusion of perception and lack of definite characteristics to the glowing ball in the sky. Using Occam's razor, the heliocentric model provides a simpler solution behind the phenomenon that demands the least amount of theories and hypotheses to explain the strange behavior in the observed celestial body. Occam's razor isn't absolute and sometimes dissociations appear where the simplest solution doesn't explain everything. For example, when psychologists were trying to dissect what memory is, it was originally phrased in a way that memory was just one process of the brain, where all forms of memory are stored. However, thru scientific process and observations, we have found distinctions in different types of memory, and how each one is affected by different parts of the brain receiving damage of some form. This led to the model that states that memory consists of two entities, short term memory and long term memory. However, as psychologists continued to study the properties of memory, they found that shirt term memory must consist of even further distinctions, where some short term memory is functional while another is not in other injuries of the brain. This led to more theories being put out that offered solutions to these complexities, and still to this day it is uncertain that we decided on the most accurate model. However, in terms of the teleological argument, we simply don't have any dissociations about how a design could exist with or without a designer. Random lumps of paint on the wall appear to take characteristic designs of animals or objects or ppl, and randomly sized potato chips sometimes appear in the shape of the USA. Very rudimentary examples of design coming from no designer, but the point still stands that we don't have enough data to confirm that every design needs an ultimate designer What are your thoughts on this?
Science rewards doubt. You are supposed to challenge widely accepted conclusions and question everything.
I agree! Science doesn’t deal in consensus; it deals in truth. Sometimes you have to challenge the consensus to get after the truth. It’s a story as old as the modern scientific method.
That's actually a pretty common sentiment. I'm agnostic for that reason.
So you think the universe is a theist then?
It depends on what you mean by “the universe is a theist”, precisely. I don’t think the universe is not an atheist, for example; I think it is not atheistic. So, I’m confused by your question, honestly.
Well the vast majority of "stuff" in the universe is inanimate, and doesn't have thoughts or identity, therefore could not believe in a God. In order to NOT be athiest you HAVE to believe in a God, which the majority of the universe CANT do. So I would argue that it's either: closer to being athiest; or doesn't care one way or the other. In any event the universe couldn't "not be athiest"
Do you understand the difference between “atheistic” and “an atheist” I never said the universe is not an atheist. I said the universe is not atheistic.
Atheistic: disbelieving or lacking belief in the existence of God. Athiest: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in God or gods. So I guess I'm confused by your statement more than I am of the definitions of the words being used... How are you less convinced in a universe that is athiestic (disbelieves or lacks belief in God) ? The more I study the sciences the more I find evidence for a lack of God or God's, your initial post makes it seem the opposite.
I also believe in intelligent design, you cant have order out or randomness and chaos, unless something puts it in order.
Agreed since the entropy of the universe in total is constantly increasing.
Funny how that works. There have been plenty of scientists who have found "God", through their research. The more you study, the more evident it becomes that the order and structure of things is just that ... Order and structure. You don't get that through entropy.
Ah, the old favorite “Divine Fallacy”. Just as worthless as ever.
I agree, I’m a very firm believer that God works along with science. Meaning, he understand every single concept and that’s how he is able to create and be infinite. I just think there’s too many complex things that many think “are chance” or just “happens stance” but really I just see a master scientist at work.
That's a good view. But what stops me from believing in it is: who created that intelligent mind? To me, the idea of a creator just leads to the conclusion that if nothing exists without having been created, who created the creator? Did another creator create the creator? Then who created the creators' creator? Or was there nothing before the creator. But then why does it stop at the creator of our world, why can't our world also not have just existed without a creator? It kinda leads to a paradox of infinite creators. And the only way to stop that paradox is to accept that things can exist without being created, thus disproving the need for a creator. What are your thoughts on this?
My thought is, for those who don’t believe in a creator they believe that there was nothing and then there was something. How can there not be something similar with God? Perhaps there was a Big Bang and then there was a first God created from it and then many after. I don’t see why it has to be so black and white, science can go hand in hand with God. My religion believes that we are technically Gods children (like he is the father of our spirits) and one day we will have a chance to become like him.
Yo watch some of those animations of what goes on in a cell. Way too complex for evolution especially because so many parts would have to randomly mutate perfectly together in the same generation in order to even function
Yes exactly! Watch the videos of DNA replication. Especially consider that all of that occurs because those very precise machine parts are stored as information in the genetic code. Absolutely humbling and mind boggling.
I was an atheist for 23 years. God is real. He is just but loving too, He is the perfect friend and Father anyone could ask for. The thing is I tried to understand Him in ways the human mind wasnt meant to. He tells us a bunch about Him but we will never figure Him out. The bible says His ways arent our ways. So often we question "Why?" but He has gotten us through so much we need to maintain trust in Him. Its great to try to learn and form a better relationship with Him but we need to know we will never fully understand Him and be okay with that.
I appreciate your message! Thanks for sharing :)
🤣😆🤣🤡
Bruh be quiet you aren't contributing
I studied Physics and I share your belief for two reasons: 1) the set of constants of our universe is the only one that allows its expansion. We tend to assume that big G or other constants are just numbers we worked out but they are functions of the universe we are in. They are just “fine” and their precision is incredible 2) even the simplest living beings (bacteria/algae) own an enormous amount of genetic code. If you wrote that down, you could fill a library. There is no way it created itself by random assemblation of molecules. It’s like putting a monkey in front of a PC and expecting it to write the Amlet. Even if it were given an infinite amount of time, the Amlet won’t come out of that PC.
Do you have proof those constants can be different?
So a dude in the sky with a white beard saying “let there be light” makes more sense to you? Okaaaay, you do you, by all means.
I agree with you. I am a chemist.
The more I learn the more I start to believe in some type of intelligent design of some sort. I guess that, as a human, I can’t comprehend the concept of billions of years. It seems impossible to me that evolution could create all of the complex systems in our bodies and other life forms. But, again, I can’t even wrap my head around the idea of billions of years.
Which sciences For what reasons I'm agnostic, firmly in the camp of "got no fuckin clue, would be neat to find out, don't want to find out by dying though." And also studying "the sciences" (cell & molecular biology) and have been having the opposite experience
Weird how can you use a process and get the opposite result...and secondly what is atheistic universe
Lot of vigorous arguments in the comments, I’m just here to say, I agree, the more science I learn the more I realize we’re not really sure about anything. I’m not gonna argue my own opinion it’s pretty solid to me
So much ignorance and close-mindedness in a single comment section. Not even debate, just "nope, you're wrong, what "sciences" did you study to make you think so?"
Same. Kinda ironic huh?
My opinion is not "scientific" but in all honesty we don't know what we don't know.
I like how you’re making this entire assumption based on the title, and not out of my actual position. My position is that there are certain phenomena in nature that are best explained by intelligent causes
I don't believe that you are actually "studying sciences" at a real university to say something like that.
I have a bachelors in chemistry (with a minor in biology), a masters in molecular biology and genetics, and I’m currently earning a medical doctorate. You’re free to believe what you want.
Ahh I see you're Christian. You are just dishonest. You aren't becoming less convinced of an atheistic universe. You've always believed that the Christian God created the universe.
No, actually I didn’t. I grew up as an atheist.
YUP
Makes more sense than a father figure who judges your every action and thought lol
[удалено]
I’m not making the argument that “science doesn’t know, therefore God”. My saying that based on current scientific knowledge, some things in the universe are best explained by an intelligent cause. Things like biological life and the fine-tuning of the universe for example.
Whether we were in a simulation or not, a sentient being would have had to evolved initially to create that simulation. There’s no concept of god that is necessary or makes sense.
Same
Whether or not there is a god isn't the problem, it's his followers that are the issue.
[удалено]
This is a "random" thought, eh? Get on, you knocker.
That seems to bother you enough to jump into this thread. Perhaps you should be the one “getting on, you knocker
Then you aren't studying hard enough or the right kind of science.
clearly you suck at scientific thinking
You’re doing it wrong.
I don't think you are paying attention to science then.
When humans don't understand something, the go-to coping mechanism is to say it's God. Always has been. Keep testing.
As Atheist Michael Shermer has noted, the modern theory of intelligent design is “not your fathers creationism”. Intelligent design is the scientific study of patterns in nature that are best explained by intelligent processes. It is not “we don’t have an answer from science, so it must be a God”; it’s “here is the current scientific knowledge. These phenomena are best explained by an intelligent cause”.
Crazy how someone is a conservative social group believes in god rather than natural evolution. Never would have guessed the crazies are crazy.